While HN is not necessarily the correct place for this discussion, note that the ICC strongly disagrees with this after a lengthy investigation and multiple quotes from Israelian politicians and generals indicate that this is not the case.
> I honestly can’t think of anything substantially positive he achieved in his tenure other than promoting Satya and Scott G and a handful of others.
Ok, but apart from fostering a great generation of new executives, investing in currently extremely profitable products and business lines, streamlining our sales operations and getting us out of these life threatening antitrust cases, what did Steve Ballmer ever do for us?
Random person writes completely unsourced negative comment about someone HN dislikes for no reason. HN cheers before launching in a pointless and already rehashed a thousands times discussion about tipping culture.
I don’t know if it’s well intentioned but it’s peak HN.
> As far as Teams goes... it is used a lot by companies that are all-in on O365, but Slack and Zoom were the two household names in the space during the pandemic.
Tell me you have no idea of what’s happening in the real world outside your small tech bubble in one sentence.
Nobody uses Slack outside of tech. They are virtually unknown in Europe.
> We have people that won't use Excel on a Mac because once they found a place where it didn't work exactly like the Windows version.
Then again, Excel on a Mac is significantly inferior to the Windows version to be honest.
> Don't even get me started on how we have to check the Azure websites before every meeting with our M$ counterparts to figure out what Azure services they've changed the name of since the last call.
Not my experience at all and we spend millions of dollars a year with them.
> And we saw what happened with Windows division under Ballmer - it was profitable but it had no future.
Microsoft under Ballmer was insanely profitable, more than its competitors and far more than before he took the helm. And despite that Ballmer launched Azure, started the push towards Entreprise software and at no point stopped investing.
I don’t think Ballmer was the best CEO ever but his poor reputation is very much undeserved.
> Ballmer's attempt to buy Yahoo and disregard for touch screen phones is what defined his legacy.
You are weirdly obsessed with that but Ballmer actually started Bing and bought Nokia to make touchscreen phones. I think you are extremely biased to the point of being entirely disconnected from the facts at hand.
> Ability to buy right things is important too.
Ballmer bought Skype and launched the foundation of what would become Teams - you know - arguably the most important corporate piece of software after Covid.
> Investment in R&D means nothing if you can't deliver. Intel has enormous R&D budget. Boeing too. Did it help them? No.
The most profitable current divisions at Microsoft were started under Ballmer. That’s literally stated in the original comment in the thread you are replying to.
> Unlike a lot of other companies like Intel or Boeing, that were run by CFOs, he did not last long enough to run MSFT into the ground due to being too late to modern trends.
How can you right this in good faith while replying to a comment laying out to you that Microsoft most successful investments a decade later were all started by Ballmer and that he took a lot of risks with R&D?
> Even with Azure and Office, he was too much into "bundle with Windows" type of guy.
Seriously? Ballmer started Office365 you know. Also the Microsoft Phone with, you know, touch screens. The sheer amount of historical revionism in this thread even in the face of hard facts is mind numbing.
Honestly, even discarding all the rest, Ballmer would deserve more respect than he gets there for getting Microsoft out of the antitrust lawsuits alone.
It’s funny how all the comments here are falling in the trap described in the beginning of the article of disliking Ballmer because he comes from the sales side and they can’t fathom someone not coming from the tech side leading a tech company.
What’s undeniable in the article is that Ballmer literally built what remains Microsoft best asset even before being a CEO there: it’s incredibly good relationship with its corporate customers. Honestly, it’s really what sets Microsoft apart for me. When you do deal with them as a corporate customer, you really get the feeling that they understand the way things work in a big corp IT department and will be reliable and predictable.
MQTT is pub/sub protocol with a concept of brokers and clients. It's not in anyway comparable to TCP. You could rewrite an equivalent of MQTT on top of TCP in a fairly straightforward way - MQTT is simple by design - but I think you take the question from the wrong end. Why would you write a new protocol when MQTT already exists and does the job?
> Uh, no, structs, records, whatever you want to call them
It's plenty clear from discussion context that OP is talking about C struct but yes, replace C with any languages which suit you. It will still be part of the language semantic and not an IPC specification.
The point is you can't generally use memory layout as an IPC protocol because you generally have no guarantee that it will be the same for all architectures.